[#3907] Obtaining mode information on an IO object — Jos Backus <jos@...>

The attached patch implements IO#mode. This method returns the mode the IO

17 messages 2004/12/06
[#3909] Re: [patch] Obtaining mode information on an IO object — nobu.nokada@... 2004/12/07

Hi,

[#3910] Re: [patch] Obtaining mode information on an IO object — Jos Backus <jos@...> 2004/12/07

On Tue, Dec 07, 2004 at 09:25:13AM +0900, nobu.nokada@softhome.net wrote:

[#3925] Re: [patch] Obtaining mode information on an IO object — James Britt <ruby@...> 2004/12/09

Jos Backus wrote:

[#4009] cgi.rb -- more GET/POST stuff — mde@...26.com

First of all, I think it would be great, as Eustaquio suggests, to

17 messages 2004/12/23
[#4016] Re: [PATCH] cgi.rb -- more GET/POST stuff — Francis Hwang <sera@...> 2004/12/24

GETs and POSTs are defined to be fairly different actions. I'd read

[#4027] Allowing custom number literal suffixes? — Florian Gro<florgro@...>

Moin!

35 messages 2004/12/27
[#4070] Re: Allowing custom number literal suffixes? — nobu.nokada@... 2005/01/02

Hi,

[#4072] Re: Allowing custom number literal suffixes? — Mathieu Bouchard <matju@...> 2005/01/02

[#4079] Re: Allowing custom number literal suffixes? — Florian Gro<florgro@...> 2005/01/03

Mathieu Bouchard wrote:

[#4081] Re: Allowing custom number literal suffixes? — Mathieu Bouchard <matju@...> 2005/01/03

[#4082] Re: Allowing custom number literal suffixes? — Florian Gro<florgro@...> 2005/01/03

Mathieu Bouchard wrote:

[#4084] Re: Allowing custom number literal suffixes? — Brent Roman <brent@...> 2005/01/04

I'm not sure I would advocate making Ruby's grammar even more

[#4086] Re: Allowing custom number literal suffixes? — Mathieu Bouchard <matju@...> 2005/01/04

[#4033] Garbage collection trouble — Christian Neukirchen <chneukirchen@...>

Hello,

13 messages 2004/12/27

Re: [ ruby-Bugs-1173 ] Incorrect escaping in strings produced by String::inspect

From: "David A. Black" <dblack@...>
Date: 2004-12-09 02:52:01 UTC
List: ruby-core #3928
Hi --

On Thu, 9 Dec 2004, [ISO-8859-1] Florian Growrote:

> David A. Black wrote:
>
>>> The following causes a runtime syntax error:
>>> eval('Foo #@ bar'.inspect)
>>> 
>>> I'm not sure if that use-case is supposed to be supported, but I think a 
>>> number of applications rely on it.
>> I don't think it's inspect or eval specific.
>> 
>> irb(main):001:0> "#@a"
>> => ""
>
> I think the original poster wanted '#@a'.inspect to be "\#@a" instead of 
> "#@a". (There's no interpolation for single quote Strings and this form of 
> variable interpolation can be escaped via \)

I don't think that's what he meant.  eval('#@a'.inspect) doesn't raise
a SyntaxError, whereas what he's written does and that was what he was
suggesting was buggy.


David

-- 
David A. Black
dblack@wobblini.net

In This Thread